Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.33C(2) – Recovery of money due from an employer – Serious dispute that respondent no.2 had worked as an employee of appellant – Jurisdiction of Labour Court – Respondent No.2 filed an application before Labour Court under s.33(C)(2) demanding difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012 – It was the case of respondent No.2 that he was working with the appellant as a salesman – However, the appellant took a categorical stand that respondent No.2 was never engaged by the appellant – Held: Once there was a serious dispute raised by the appellant that respondent No.2 was not in employment as a salesman as claimed by respondent No.2, thereafter, it was not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and respondent No.2 – As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under s.33(C)(2), the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen – It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based – The labour court’s jurisdiction under s.33(C)(2) is like that of an executing court – As per the settled preposition of law without prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under s.33(C)(2) of the Act.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: When there was no prior adjudication on the issue whether respondent No.2 was in employment as a salesman as claimed by respondent No.2 and there was a serious dispute raised that respondent No.2 was never in employment as a salesman and the documents relied upon by respondent No.2 were seriously disputed by the appellant and it was the case on behalf of the appellant that those documents are forged and/or false, thereafter the Labour Court ought not to have proceeded further with the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ought to have relegated respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate proceedings by way of reference and get his right crystalized and/or adjudicate upon. Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court was beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court has not appreciated the facts and has confirmed the same without adverting to the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. [Para 7][527-G-H; 528-A-C] Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 292 : [2006] 3 SCR 48; Union of India and another v. Kankuben (Dead) by LRs. and Others (1995) 1 SCC 235 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 617 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.